[NickRW]

Has anyone played or come across a xfer system of responses to a (natural) 1♦ opening. I've been mulling over things similar to xfer walsh over 1♣, others that are "kaplan inversionish" like over 1♥ and other hybrid ideas.

Some of these seem to have significant pluses - but then I wonder about other possible downsides - and all the permutations of possible rebids is doing my head in - so has anyone come across such a scheme of responses and rebids - and what was it like to play (if you did)?

Nick

[the hog]

Bocchi and Duboin used to play this.

[whereagles]

How did they do it, if I may ask? My split-second thought has enlapsed and I still can't seem to guess how they did it

[kgr]

With my previous partner, I played that 1♥ shows ♠ and 1♠ shows ♥.
I didn't have any real advantage, other then that opener can play more.

[NickRW]

kgr, on Mar 7 2010, 09:39 AM, said:

With my previous partner, I played that 1♥ shows ♠ and 1♠ shows ♥.
I didn't have any real advantage, other then that opener can play more.

Well, I play that too. It does have the slight advantage that, when you don't have the boss suit you bid it - then opps can X as a t/o of hearts or X to show spades only, but they can't do both. The downside is that they get an extra step over the 1♥ response - but in that case your side has claimed the spades, so (possibly) not so much bother.

Anyway, inverted majors over 1♦ is not a true xfer - opener needs 1♠ after 1♦-1♥ to show hearts - so cannot use that call as an xfer completion.

My initial idea for a scheme of responses was:
1♥ = xfer to spades.
1♠ = similar to KI, "xferish" to 1N
1N = 5+ hearts

But it isn't quite like either KI or Xfer Walsh - there are subtle differences compared to both xfer walsh and KI - there is less room than you had over a 1♣ opener and the 1♦ opener is less well defined than the 1♥.

So I started playing with 1N = 4+ hearts and other, more full blown xfer schemes that bring clubs into the picture - but they all give rise to differences in openers rebids and the permutations of possible responses and rebids was doing my head in. Hence why I am trying to pick your collective brains.

Nick

[the hog]

whereagles, on Mar 7 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

How did they do it, if I may ask? My split-second thought has enlapsed and I still can't seem to guess how they did it

They played 1H = S and 1S = H.

[whereagles]

thx. not wierd enough for me to guess... I guess

[gwnn]

I love transfers over 1!d-x starting with xx. Switching majors is something I thought of but it just needs a lot of work. I think 2H and 2S both need to be flannery now?

[straube]

I'm guessing they used Flannery responses, too.

1D-2H=5+H/4S constructive
1D-2S=5+H/4S GI

Then

1D-1H=S
1D-1S=H
1D-1N=N
1D-1H, 1S=opener shows 4H

When responder has GF with 5H/4S, he responds 1S and then makes a GF checkback
When responder has GF with 5S/5H, he responds 1H and then makes a GF checkback
.....if opener doesn't show hearts

It would be a mistake imo to use 1D-1N to show hearts in order to try to transfer the NT.

[Fluffy]

1♥= ♠ and 1♠=♥ doesn't tell us much

what do you do with 4-4 mayors? what is 1♠ from opener?

[kgr]

Fluffy, on Mar 7 2010, 05:07 PM, said:

what do you do with 4-4 mayors?

1♥

Quote

what is 1♠ from opener?

1♦-1♥-1♠=4c♥

[gwnn]

I always thought 1S would be 3 card support for spades! silly me i guess?

[Gerben42]

Quote

  I always thought 1S would be 3 card support for spades! silly me i guess?

Nope. Then what do you do with 4-card ♥? By playing 1m - 1♥ - 1♠ as hearts you are getting every auction you were getting before, no more no less. But with the added advantages of opener playing more and preempting opps when you have ♥ and they have ♠.

[awm]

There are, however, some mild disadvantages to this treatment.

One is that opponents have extra space over 1♦-1♥ showing spades, which they can use to get in a "heart bid" without having to go to the two-level. Yes, perhaps you can out-complete them anyway, but it's not clear that you actually have a spade fit just because responder has four.

Another more esoteric one is that you have some auctions like 1♦-1M-2♣ and 1♦-1M-2♦. Opener has more possible hand types for this sequence when the major-suit response was 1♠ (regardless of meaning) because he can have hands which include four cards in the major responder did not show. Most people play some kind of artificial check-back bid (i.e. 4th suit force) which is generally the bid of the major suit that responder did not show. We'd like this bid to be cheaper when opener has more possible hand types, which is accomplished in standard methods (1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥!) but not in the transfer scheme (1♦-1♠!-2♣-2♠!).

[akhare]

awm, on Mar 8 2010, 12:59 PM, said:

There are, however, some mild disadvantages to this treatment.

One is that opponents have extra space over 1♦-1♥ showing spades, which they can use to get in a "heart bid" without having to go to the two-level. Yes, perhaps you can out-complete them anyway, but it's not clear that you actually have a spade fit just because responder has four.

Another more esoteric one is that you have some auctions like 1♦-1M-2♣ and 1♦-1M-2♦. Opener has more possible hand types for this sequence when the major-suit response was 1♠ (regardless of meaning) because he can have hands which include four cards in the major responder did not show. Most people play some kind of artificial check-back bid (i.e. 4th suit force) which is generally the bid of the major suit that responder did not show. We'd like this bid to be cheaper when opener has more possible hand types, which is accomplished in standard methods (1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥!) but not in the transfer scheme (1♦-1♠!-2♣-2♠!).

On a somewhat tangential note, the xfer method would be verboten under ACBL GCC right (unless 1♦ was 15+)?

[NickRW]

awm, on Mar 8 2010, 05:59 PM, said:

Another more esoteric one is that you have some auctions like 1♦-1M-2♣ and 1♦-1M-2♦. Opener has more possible hand types for this sequence when the major-suit response was 1♠ (regardless of meaning) because he can have hands which include four cards in the major responder did not show. Most people play some kind of artificial check-back bid (i.e. 4th suit force) which is generally the bid of the major suit that responder did not show. We'd like this bid to be cheaper when opener has more possible hand types, which is accomplished in standard methods (1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥!) but not in the transfer scheme (1♦-1♠!-2♣-2♠!).

In practice I don't find this a disadvantage as reponder normally bid 1♥ (regardless of which it means), if not capable of finding of finding a 2nd forcing bid. Thus under the inverted major scheme I'm not going to hear 1♦-1♠-2m-2♠ unless there is something worth hearing about in responders hand anyway.

However, you're right, the advantages of inverted majors over 1♦ are certainly marginal

[Free]

I've played this in the past, and 1♦-1♥-1♠ showed 4♥. I'm not convinced this is an improvement, but it's just fun.

You have some problem hands for the various solutions:
- 4-4M (problem when 1♦-1♥-1♠ shows 3♠)
- 4♠-5♥ (rebid after 1NT from opener)
- 5♠-4♥ (possibly a rebid problem after 1NT from opener)

[NickRW]

Free, on Mar 9 2010, 09:25 AM, said:

You have some problem hands for the various solutions:
- 4-4M (problem when 1♦-1♥-1♠ shows 3♠)

Yes, well, this problem is what I was struggling with in the OP. Obviously it is a big plus to be able to use that sequence that way - the 1♥ response becomes a genuine transfer then and you can sort out both the 4-4 and 5-3 spade fits even when responder is quite weak - which is fairly huge.

The downside is the hearts. How does opener show 4 hearts especially when responder could have been 4-4M and would naturally show the spades first under this scheme. You can't have a 1N rebid show 4 as opener will want that for the 2=3=5=3 hands and maybe some similar shapes.

There seem to be all sorts of possible solutions, none of which is ideal.

Nick

[NickRW]

NickRW, on Mar 7 2010, 10:20 AM, said:

My initial idea for a scheme of responses was:
1♥ = xfer to spades.
1♠ = similar to KI, "xferish" to 1N
1N = 5+ hearts

Replying to my own post, the above scheme isn't that bad given that you're prepared to

1) Open 2=3=4=4 shape 1♣ and
2) Sometimes have to put up with rebidding a poor 5 card diamond suit on a 2=3=5=3 shape.

After 1♣-1♥ showing 4 spades, opener normally completes the transfer with 3 and bids 1N with 4 hearts. This seems to sort out all the 4-4 and 5-3 major fits. The worst example hand I've so far come across coming out of the dealer program was:

---

Assuming opps silent it would have to start 1♦-1♠-2♦ and then you're playing a 6 card fit rather than 1N. In practice the opps may well not be silent.

So it looks like it is possible, with some downside, to have the plus of playing your best major fits when at all possible.

Nick

[rbforster]

akhare, on Mar 8 2010, 03:03 PM, said:

On a somewhat tangential note, the xfer method would be verboten under ACBL GCC right (unless 1♦ was 15+)?

Correct - this would not be GCC the way one would normally want to play it. It would work if 1♦ where "strong" (15+), or if the 1M responses were game-forcing, but obviously this is pretty restrictive.